RAND-INITIATED RESEARCH CHILD POLICY This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CIVIL JUSTICE service of the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE 6 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY organization providing objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SUBSTANCE ABUSE and private sectors around the world. TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND-Initiated Research View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. This product is part of the RAND Corporation occasional paper series. RAND occasional papers may include an informed perspective on a timely policy issue, a discussion of new research methodologies, essays, a paper presented at a conference, a conference summary, or a summary of work in progress. All RAND occasional papers undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. Assimilating Immigrants Why America Can and France Cannot Robert A. Levine OP-132-RC July 2004 This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors and the fees earned on client-funded research. ISBN: 0-8330-3669-6 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface The large-scale immigration of Mexicans and other Latin Americans into the United States has stimulated a debate on America’s ability to assimilate them. A parallel debate in Europe, particularly France, concerns the ability of that continent and that nation to assimilate the similar ingress of Muslims from North Africa and elsewhere. This occasional paper uses the history of mass immigrations into the United States to examine the two current streams and the two debates. It concludes that today’s Mexican inflow differs little from past mass immi- grations into the United States by the Irish, the Jews, and the Italians and that assimilation should be as successful as in the past. France, however, while it has successfully assimilated a wide variety of individuals, has had no previous mass immigrations, and its current direction is likely to lead to increasing problems. The paper suggests a “steady as she goes” course for the United States, and some policy changes that may help France cope. This product is part of the RAND Corporation occasional paper series. RAND occa- sional papers may include an informed perspective on a timely policy issue, a discussion of new research methodologies, an essay, a paper presented at a conference, a conference sum- mary, or a summary of work in progress. All RAND occasional papers undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND’s donors and fees earned on client-funded research. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sec- tors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. iii The RAND Corporation Quality Assurance Process Peer review is an integral part of all RAND research projects. Prior to publication, this document, as with all documents in the RAND occasional paper series, was subject to a quality assurance process to ensure that the research meets several standards, including the following: The problem is well formulated; the research approach is well designed and well executed; the data and assumptions are sound; the findings are useful and advance knowl- edge; the implications and recommendations follow logically from the findings and are explained thoroughly; the documentation is accurate, understandable, cogent, and temperate in tone; the research demonstrates understanding of related previous studies; and the research is relevant, objective, independent, and balanced. Peer review is conducted by research pro- fessionals who were not members of the project team. RAND routinely reviews and refines its quality assurance process and also conducts periodic external and internal reviews of the quality of its body of work. For additional details regarding the RAND quality assurance process, visit http://www.rand.org/standards/. v Acknowledgments This occasional paper benefited greatly from comments by and dialogs with a wide range of readers of earlier drafts: active and retired RAND colleagues in the United States and Europe (James Kahan, Nelson Lim, Kevin McCarthy, Anthony Pascal, and Georges Vernez); Ameri- cans living in France (Robert Donahue and William Pfaff); and French colleagues (Ghislain de Langre, Marianne Debouzy, and Juliette Minces). Particular thanks are due to Odette van de Riet of RAND Europe, who supervised the extensive review of the paper. The resulting product is, of course, the sole responsibility of the author. vii Assimilating Immigrants: Why America Can and France Cannot The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream American culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. —Samuel P. Huntington (2004) The universal assumption of Americans has always been that immigrants came to the United States to become (or see their children become) culturally assimilated Americans. Americans took for granted that assimilation was essential to national unity . The French position has always been that nationality is indifferent to race or origin, but is cultural and can be acquired. It has been the European country most open to immigration, but the most insistent on assimilation. —William Pfaff (2004) America’s history of immigration and the assimilation of immigrants has become a reference point in two separate policy controversies, one in the United States, the other in Europe—particularly France. Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington is the latest and the highest-profile critic of the de facto open door to Latino immigration. William Pfaff, a Paris- based syndicated columnist, has interpreted for Americans the French controversy over Mus- lim immigration, a controversy reflected throughout Western Europe. The contention here is that Huntington is wrong about both the American past and the future; Pfaff oversimplifies the American experience—the melting-pot ideal that “Ameri- cans took for granted” never represented reality—but he is right about France. Latino immi- gration into the United States differs little from previous waves of mass ingress and is no more threatening. Each wave has changed American culture, which long ago transcended the Anglo-Protestantism on which it was initially based; none of them has eroded basic constitu- tional institutions or freedoms. French experience is different. The central difference—between the United States and France and between France’s past and its future—lies in numbers. France absorbs indi- viduals into its classic culture; until the current ingress of North African Muslims, it had not experienced mass immigration, and neither its beliefs nor its policies have adapted to the new wave. The United States has absorbed mass migrations over a several-generation period and has continually adapted its own culture and policies. The difference does not make either 1 2 Assimilating Immigrants: Why America Can and France Cannot country morally or politically “better” or “worse” than the other, but American practice is likely to preserve its essential institutions; unless France changes direction, the difference may lead to dire consequences for that admirable nation. Other member states of the European Union